MADAIAH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner has called in question the correctness and legality of the order made by the deputy commissioner-first respondent herein at Annexure-C , dated 7-10-1985, and he has sought for quashing the same for the reasons set out in the writ petition.

(2.) the brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this write petition are as follows : 4 acres of land in sy. No. 9/1, situated in thammadahalli village, hunsur taluk, Mysore dist. Was granted on lease for one year for 1950-51 by the competitive authority under the Mysore land grant rules, in favour of kellaiah, father of madaiah, petitioner herein. Accordingly a certificate of leasehold rights came to be issued in his favour on 27-3-1950. It is not in dispute that the land in question came to be sold in favour of (1) marigowda and (2) chikkaputtegowda, husbands of respondent 3 and respondent 4 of thippalapura village, hanagodu hobli, hunsur taluk, under a registered sale deed dated 1-3-1954. After the coming into force of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') the petitioner, son of the original grantee, approached the assistant commissioner-second respondent with an application requesting the authority for a declaration that the alienation was null and void and for restoration of the land to him as, according to him, the land was sold in contravention of the condition of the grant. The assistant commissioner, having notified the persons interested, held an enquiry and passed the order annexure-b, declaring the sale as null and void and directing restoration of the land to the petitioner on the ground that the land was sold against the condition of grant that it shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years. Aggrieved by the said Order, respondents 3 and 4 filed an appeal before the special deputy commissioner, Mysore district, mysore, who, having heard the learned counsel on both sides, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the assistant commissioner holding that as the land in question was sold in public auction for a valid consideration, the Provisions of the act were not attracted. Hence, this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india.

(3.) the main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land in question was not sold by public auction as stated by the first respondent deputy commissioner, but was granted under the land grant rules then prevailing which provided permanent prohibition to alienate the land and that therefore the deputy commissioner was not correct in allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the assistant commissioner.